If I have an objection in this current political climate, it is the complete abandonment of consistency by both sides of the political divide. For example:
- Bernie Sanders suggests that an appointee is not fit for office because his Christian point of view that only Christians are "saved" would color his ability to do his job, and the right goes nuts.
- Roy Moore states that an elected offical should not be seated because he is Muslim.... crickets from the right
Both positions defy Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: one by a sitting Senator and the other by a superior court judge who OUGHT to know the law.
Of course, the opposite is true from the left. Sanders is defended, and Moore is condemned.
I look at it and think, "both of these men did the same thing: apply a religious test for a political office when the constitution explicitly forbids this." We are free to hold our personal beliefs as citizens, but we are NOT free to place our personal/religious beliefs ahead of the law of the country as a government official. If your religious beliefs are in contradiction with law, then either do not be a government official, or be a government official and observe the law while simultaneously trying to get the law changed. As a citizen, you are free to say, "the law of my god supercedes the law of the land" and act accordingly. In your capacity as a government official, you are not. Our country is founded (in part) on the principal religious freedom. Our constitution precludes any government-sponsored religion. In your capacity as a government official, you MUST be religiously neutral. Outside of that capacity, or as a free citizen, no such obligation exists.
One of the things we CAN do to bridge the political divide is to ask ourselves, "am I applying different rules for 'my team' than I am for others?" If the answer is yes - something is wrong...
- Bernie Sanders suggests that an appointee is not fit for office because his Christian point of view that only Christians are "saved" would color his ability to do his job, and the right goes nuts.
- Roy Moore states that an elected offical should not be seated because he is Muslim.... crickets from the right
Both positions defy Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: one by a sitting Senator and the other by a superior court judge who OUGHT to know the law.
Of course, the opposite is true from the left. Sanders is defended, and Moore is condemned.
I look at it and think, "both of these men did the same thing: apply a religious test for a political office when the constitution explicitly forbids this." We are free to hold our personal beliefs as citizens, but we are NOT free to place our personal/religious beliefs ahead of the law of the country as a government official. If your religious beliefs are in contradiction with law, then either do not be a government official, or be a government official and observe the law while simultaneously trying to get the law changed. As a citizen, you are free to say, "the law of my god supercedes the law of the land" and act accordingly. In your capacity as a government official, you are not. Our country is founded (in part) on the principal religious freedom. Our constitution precludes any government-sponsored religion. In your capacity as a government official, you MUST be religiously neutral. Outside of that capacity, or as a free citizen, no such obligation exists.
One of the things we CAN do to bridge the political divide is to ask ourselves, "am I applying different rules for 'my team' than I am for others?" If the answer is yes - something is wrong...
Comment